Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
spending. he went from 70% support down to below 50% and lost the house. now he gets re-elected with less strength, not against a war hero but a guy from massachusetts, and the republicans have the house and he thinks somebody made him king and he's going to have more taxes, more spending, and more regulations. it's a real problem for him. he doesn't have the mandate he thinks he does. so i think he takes us over the cliff because he doesn't -- he's got blinders on. he doesn't see where he stands in the universe. >> okay. there are a couple things to unpack here. i want to go back to this question -- i think what i'm confused about is this kind of game of smoke and mirrors that seems to be playing out on the right. and i ask you again, is closing a loophole and ending a deduction the same thing as raising taxes? >> you have to look at the whole package. i mean i would think if you're going to -- and the other key thing here is, anybody -- >> is that a no? >> you have to -- first you have to look at the whole package and find out what's in it. to sit here and shoot at negotiating strategie
can get this sorted out, you can really move forward, and therefore, i think now that your elections are out of the way, i'm just speaking as an outsider, now your election is out of the way, there's going to be all this bargaining and positions, but my expectations, i hope, and the desire of the world, is sorted out, and we can move on, and then sort our own problems out. >> for those of us in the united states, we see sort of what seems to be two intractable issues. republicans saying we will not raise taxes on the top 2% of earners. the democrats say we're certainly not going to have cuts that hurt spending cuts that hurt the middle class. and as the proposals go on the table they seem intractable on it. >> they do. but you would expect them, the republicans to be more on the tax side and democrats to be more on the we're not cutting spending side. this is pretty routine type of argument. the question is, you know, are they so far apart they can't bridge the gap? i think they could bridge the gap. you know, there have been proposals put forward on a cross-party basis before that v
. susan rice's appalling words when she put election politics ahead of stopping the again side in rwanda. before that tweet was deleted. a 2002 article claims rice said this. if we use the word again side and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the november congressional election? our foreign affairs reporter is out front tonight. elise, does the criticism against rice add up, do you think? >> i don't think 100%, soledad. susan rice was director for u.n. affairs at the national security council at the time of the again side, the rwanda again side. that office dealt more with the united nations than with africa, even though the united nations was dealing with the issue. at the time it was a working level staff position. her first in government, ambassador rice could make announcements at that level, but wouldn't be involved making an important decision getting involved militarily in rwanda. president clinton said he made the decision, it was the greatest mistake of his presidency, and ambassador rice travelled to rwanda after the again side. she said seeing the ground li
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3